Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1007 (2026)

State board of education; body corporate; seal; ordinances, bylaws, regulations.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Act 287 of 1964

388.1007 State board of education; body corporate; seal; ordinances, bylaws, regulations.

Sec. 7.

The state board of education is a body corporate and may purchase, have, hold, possess, enjoy, grant, alien, invest, sell, and dispose of real and personal property of every kind; may sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in all the courts in this state; may have, use, alter and renew a seal; and may make such ordinances, bylaws and regulations as it deems proper for the government and conduct of the board and for the transaction of its business and the operation of the state institutions under its control if they are not repugnant to the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States.

History: 1964, Act 287, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1976–2013 · leading case: Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 73 F.R.D. 30 (W.D. Mich. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 73 F.R.D. 30 (W.D. Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “The only real factual distinction urged by the state defendants is that “the University of Tennessee receives income from many sources in addition to *34 substantial legislative appropriations.” [Supplemental brief, p. 1.] “The sole source of ‘income’ of the State Board of…”

Garden City Educ. Ass'n v. Sch. Dist., 975 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “” Because the layoffs that are the subject of this action did not occur until June 2012, the Court assumes that the "2011” date in the Complaint is merely a typographical error and the Plaintiff Nutt's recall actually occurred in December 2012.”

Abick v. Michigan, 607 F. Supp. 687 (E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “6440 waived the State’s sovereign immunity; it merely indicated that this statute did not conflict with the explicit waiver in M.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.